However, Tarantino has made it clear that he’s included all of that because without the language the film would be less authentic for the time it’s set in. There’s a fine line between ensuring offence isn’t caused and whitewashing truth. Personally I’ve not seen Django so can’t comment on what side of the line that film sits.

I meet up with media types from LA all the time for work. Compared to Europeans they’re not even centrist. I suppose it’s another example of how the US political spectrum is massively skewed to the right.

I think it comes from the pre-McCarthy period when many European, often Jewish, intellectuals worked there. Even to this day there is a tendency to portray rural people as rednecks, despite the ongoing emphasis on the cosy nuclear suburban ideal which is perhaps what seems to overwhelmingly conservative to most of us.

I think the terms should be used in period films. We can’t rewrite history.

It is a bit like smoking on planes. I saw an old film the other day where they were lighting up in flight and it was really shocking.

But it adds a good contrast to how things are now.

Eventually ordinary viewers will be shocked when they hear these terms.

But they should definitely be cut from contemporary settings as films are a powerful culture spreader. They are also seen in all the third world countries where homophobia is downright lethal. So we are just encouraging that.

Homophobia is religiously driven. It begins in schools. Stamp out religious anti-gay rheteroic, you’ll stamp out homophobia. While I think Amy Pascal’s comments are HUGELY helpful, she’s targetting the wrong source. Hollywood is run by people who once went to school. They were taught AT SCHOOL to be homophobic. Break the cycle. Stop homophobia being learned by kids. Stop religions teaching that ‘gay’ is wrong. Simples.

The classic censorship dilemma… should movie dramas reflect reality as lived in which you do encounter homophobic banter in certain situations or should movies be at the vanguard of changing attitudes?
It brings to mind the TV series “Neighbours” which started using bizarre pre-watershed non-expletives, as in the phrase “Rack off”. Does anyone actually use “Rack off” in their daily interactions?
As an example if you were depicting a scene of homophobic bullying in a school on film, or in a historical setting pre 1967, should you pull punches?
I’m in two minds here… that kind of censorship plays merry hell with dramatic authenticity. There’s a difference between gratuitous use of homophobic language and authenticity in context.
That said, dropping it in for cheap laughs is an easy cut to make, and LGBT stereotypes aren’t compulsory.

If it serves a serious purpose than i have no problem with it- its when its slipped in without thought or for comedy purpose it winds me up. Its an unfortunate facet of the world and always has been and if its needed to be historically accurate or point out that a certain character is a bigot then fine.

1 – Gratuituous use of slurs should be avoided (like gratuituous violence, sex, etc.) but it can make a lot of sense in contemporary scripts because, after all, films reflect reality and a film might want to explore this issue. If anything, slurs and derogatory terms and expressions should be censored if they have no reason to be there and especially if their use is glamorized and ancouraged onscreen.
The role of the discrimination in the script should be thoroughly analized.

2 – “How many times have you heard a character imply to another that the worst thing about going to prison isn’t being locked up for the rest of your life, it’s the homosexuality?”
No, that’s not homosexuality: it’s rape. Go read the Wikipedia article on sexuality in prisons, but rape in jail is much more related to power dynamics, humiliation tactics and sexual frustration than to the sexuality of anyone there.